289 F.R.D. 513
D. Ariz.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are fourteen inmates challenging ADC health care and isolation-unit conditions.
- Defendants are ADC Director Charles Ryan and Interim Director Richard Pratt.
- ADC operates ten complexes with over 33,000 inmates; isolation population around 3,000.
- Plaintiffs allege deliberate indifference to health care and unconstitutional isolation-unit confinement.
- Plaintiffs seek class and subclass certification for injunctive/declaratory relief and a plan to remedy deficiencies.
- Court granted class certification, defined Class and Subclass, and appointed class counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Class satisfies Rule 23(a) requirements | Systemic health care deficiencies affect all inmates. | Allegations are fragmentary and fact-specific; no common policy. | Commonality satisfied; numerosity, typicality, adequacy met. |
| Whether the Subclass satisfies Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) | Isolation-unit conditions present uniform risk of harm to all inmates. | Differences among inmates undermine common questions. | Subclass certified under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive/declaratory relief. |
| Whether the Class claims are typical of the class members | Named Plaintiffs’ injuries arise from the same systemic practices. | Injuries vary among class members; atypical across individuals. | Typicality satisfied; injuries need not be identical, only from same course of conduct. |
| Whether the Class Representatives adequately represent the class | Representatives have no conflicts and are represented by experienced counsel. | One named plaintiff (Parsons) was released on parole undermining adequacy. | Parsons dismissed; remaining named plaintiffs adequate; counsel approved. |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate | Defendants’ conduct applies generally; injunctive relief appropriate for all. | Individualized injuries undermine broad relief; challenges should be under 23(b)(3). | Rule 23(b)(2) certification upheld; injunctive/declaratory relief applicable to all. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (rigorous commonality analysis; not all questions must be common)
- Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) (typicality in class actions; injuries need not be identical)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (class determinations involve facts and legal issues enmeshed with merits)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (reaffirmed standard for commonality in class actions)
- Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) (classwide proof of same harm suffices for commonality)
- Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) (injunctive relief considerations for class actions involving constitutional rights)
- Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998) (pattern or practice capable of classwide relief under 23(b)(2))
- Shook v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 543 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 2008) (23(b)(2) relief not required to meet exacting Rule 65(d) specificity)
- Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) (23(b)(2) injunctive relief available where patterns affect class as a whole)
- Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 709 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013) (significant proof supports system-wide policy in class actions)